hBefore the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 676.
Instituted on : 01.12.2017.
Decided on : 19.08.2019.
- Dhanpat 49 years, 2. Tej Pal 47 years, 3. Balmat 45 years, 4. Roshan Lal 43 years, sons of Sh. Ram Bhagat
All residents of Village Ajaib Teh. Meham District Rohtak.
..………..Complainant.
Vs.
Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, 1st Floor, Shivalik Apartments, SCF-4, HUA Commercial Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the Smt. Panmeshri mother of the complainants was insured with the respondent vide policy no.U160253111 issued on 13.03.2010 for an assured amount of Rs.705000/- which was issued by the respondent against proper receipts. That Smt. Panmeshri paid four installments of Rs.15000/- each and had died on 06.01.2016 leaving behind the complainants as her legal heirs. That after the death of Smt. Panmeshri, the complainants filed a claim with the opposite parties and submitted all the relevant documents with the opposite parties but the claim has been illegally refused by the OPs. That the act of opposite parties of rejecting the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that OP may kindly be directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.705000/- plus vested bonus and benefits alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written reply has submitting therein that the deceased life assured having paid 4 Initial premiums commencing from 13.03.2010 up till March 21013. That the deceased life assured failed to submit the premium installment due in March 2014 & 2015 till the death of the insured in 2016. That on the date of death of life assured, the policy in question was in lapsed condition. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, Ex.C2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed her evidence on 22.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 06.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the documents placed on record by both the parties, Smt. Panmeshri had paid premiums upto 10.04.2013 i.e. four installments. But thereafter, she failed to pay the premium amount in the year 2014 and 2015 and had died on 06.01.2016. Hence at the time of her death, policy was in lapse condition. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2018)CPJ482(NC) titled as Ranjit Singh Vs.HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “The annual premium was not paid on or before due date. Premium was not paid even within 15 days grace period-Policy lapsed on 20.11.2015-Insured admittedly died on 07.12.2015, after insurance policy had expired-Repudiation justified”. In view of the aforesaid law, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. On the other hand, law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant 1(2018)CPJ519(NC) titled as Kishor Hasanand Jeswani Vs. UIIC and IV(2017)CPJ374(NC) titled as Nitaben Bhikalal Bamb & Ors. Vs. OIC are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the alleged authorities, the policy was cancelled by the opposite parties whereas in the present case, policy was lapsed due to non-payment of due premium. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
